What do systematic reviews say?

Orthodontic treatment with appliances inducing stable, permanent orthodontic tooth movement (splints worn 8 to 12 weeks and surgical interventions excluded) vs Control: no treatment, placebo, or reassurance

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Orthodontics for treating temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disorders 2010 · Cochrane All outcomes

  At least 6 months after the intervention
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies
  No studies found

Experimental chewing adjuncts (bite wafers or chewing gum) vs No chewing gum, placebo, or control (no adjunct)

Experimental chewing adjuncts (bite wafers or chewing gum) led to lower quality of life or patient satisfaction compared with no chewing gum, placebo, or control (no adjunct); GRADE not reported.

• Non‐pharmacological interventions for alleviating pain during orthodontic treatment 2016 · Cochrane All outcomes

  24 hours
  RR 0.45 [0.22, 0.94]
  2 studies · 107 participants
  GRADE not reported

Analgesic (any: NSAID, paracetamol, local anaesthetic or opioid) vs placebo or control

• Pharmacological interventions for pain relief during orthodontic treatment 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Reported narratively by 2 studies (Wang 2012: SF-36 and SAS - significant reduction in SF-36 bodily pain at 30 days vs baseline, no significant between-group differences; Minor 2009: STAI and PANAS - no significant…
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

Light vibrational forces (LVF) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

• Non‐surgical adjunctive interventions for accelerating tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment 2023 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Katchooi 2018 (unclear risk of bias): light vibrational forces had no statistically significant (P>0.05) effect on OHRQoL when used with orthodontic aligners.
  1 study · 27 participants
  GRADE not reported